‘Originally No Clergy-Laity Distinction’

● Each year many Protestant churches in the United States have what is called “Laymen’s Sunday,” on which a layman shares the pulpit with the clergyman. Commenting on this clergy-laity distinction on such a Sunday, Dr. Sockman, one of America’s foremost Protestant clergymen, pointed out that “originally there was no distinction between clergy and laity.” Dr. Sockman had previously observed that the activities of the laymen were needed to supplement “the declining effectiveness of clerical preaching.” He urged laymen to have a part by preaching to their friends, because “there is something disintegrating about hearing without doing,” to have our emotions moved “without acting” tends to make those emotions “flabby.” All very true, Dr. Sockman, but so long as the clergy-laity distinction remains, and the laity pay the clergy to do the preaching in spite of its ineffectiveness, there will be little preaching by the laity. Since originally there was no clergy-laity distinction, why not drop it and go back to the apostolic custom of having all preach and that without remuneration?

“Abolish the Laity”?

● That it is possible for a Labor leader to give good advice to clergymen is seen from the following: Albert Whitehouse, an official of the United Steelworkers of America (CIO), was a guest speaker at the American Baptist Convention held at Atlantic City, New Jersey. Expressing his concern over the fact that so many of those who join a church do not remain with it, he suggested: “Perhaps we should abolish the laity and all become preachers of our faith. We should move out of the church building and into the community.” Could it be that Mr. Whitehouse has learned that Jehovah’s witnesses have been doing that very thing for many years, which in part accounts for their remarkable increase?